There’s no dispute Frank Bonacci was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

A jury must now decide whether Jason Dominick was, too.

Seated in the front passenger seat of his car, Mr. Bonacci died from a bullet to the back of his head. Lackawanna County prosecutors say Mr. Dominick is the cold-blooded killer who fired the shot.

The defense insists he was a pawn in the murderous plot of his best friend, Neil Pal.

The conflicting portraits played out in court Thursday morning as attorneys gave closing arguments in Mr. Dominick’s trial for Mr. Bonacci’s death.

Mr. Dominick is charged with first and third degree murder and conspiracy. Prosecutors say he killed Mr. Bonacci as the men rode in the victim’s car with Mr. Pal on July 20. The men then forced the car into a ravine, where it was found seven days later. Mr. Dominick claims Mr. Pal, who charged as an accomplice and is scheduled for trial in June, was the shooter.

In a 1 ½ hour monologue, First Assistant District Attorney Gene Talerico described the 23-year-old Scranton man as an obsessed, jealous, paranoid man who killed Mr. Bonacci to settle a grudge over Keri Tucker,a woman both men dated.

Mr. Dominick’s attorney, Bernard Brown,admitted his client took part in covering up the killing and is guilty of having “bad friends,” but said that does not mean he is a killer.

The jury, which deliberated for 7 ½ hours Thursday without reaching a verdict, must decide if Mr. Dominick is guilty of either the homicide count as a principal, which means he fired the shot, or an accomplice, which means he facilitated the crime. They will return this morning to resume deliberations.

In his 25-minute closing, Mr. Brown refuted claims Mr. Dominick killed to exact revenge for Mr. Bonacci’s relationship with Ms. Tucker. He said evidence showed the men had settled their differences and were getting along at the all-night drinking party at Mr. Pal’s home in the hours before Mr. Bonacci was killed.

“Every single kid at that party said there was not a single problem between Jason and Frank,” Mr. Brown said. “Does that sound like someone intent on committing murder?”

The reality, Mr. Brown said, is Mr. Dominick had no idea what Mr. Pal had planned when he got into Mr. Bonacci’s vehicle that morning.

“Jason Dominick got into the car for the exact reason Frank Bonacci did. He thought it was to go home,” Mr. Brown said.

Mr. Dominick did help Mr. Pal force Mr. Bonacci’s vehicle over a cliff, he said. He did so because Mr. Pal threatened to kill him and/or his family.

“I’m not saying Jason is a saint,” Mr. Brown said. “His friends were not the best. But does that make him a killer?”

Yes, said Mr. Talerico.

Mr. Talerico recounted the dozens of text messages Mr. Dominick sent and received in the weeks prior to and after Mr. Bonacci’s death. They showed that he remained obsessed with Ms. Tucker, with whom he had a five-year, on-again, off-again relationship.

Equally damning are the series of texts Mr. Dominick exchanged with friends during the seven days Mr. Bonacci was missing. They included one in which he said he hoped searchers found Mr. Bonacci because his family “deserves to know he’s OK.” He sent it knowing Mr. Bonacci was dead.

Mr. Talerico also attacked Mr. Dominick’s claims that he aided in forcing the car off the cliff because of Mr. Pal’s threats. He played a video taken at a diner Mr. Dominick, Mr. Pal and several others went to for breakfast just hours after Mr. Bonacci was killed. The video shows Mr. Dominick casually getting up to pay the bill and waving to the diner staff as he leaves.

“You look to see if you see any fear in his face . . . Is there that absolute terror he testified to?” Mr. Talerico asked, noting this was the morning after Mr. Dominick “saw a guy just get murdered and run down a ravine.”

In his opening statement last week, Mr. Brown said Mr. Bonacci was a “liability,” who was “bringing heat” on Mr. Pal. He did not offer any further explanation but indicated there might be a drug connection. No witnesses at trial testified regarding that issue, however.

“I suggest to you ladies and gentlemen the motive was a shared motive and the primary actor was Jason Dominick,” Mr. Talerico said. “We are not suggesting Neil Pal is a good, kind man. He was the perfect partner for killing.”

The defense and prosecution also sparred over the interpretation of reports prepared by forensic pathologists and firearms experts. The experts disagreed over whether the evidence showed the shot was fired from the rear passenger seat, where Mr. Dominick was seated, or the driver’s seat, where Mr. Pal was seated. The jury’s determination of which report to believe is a crucial element of the case as it will help decide who was the shooter.

Contact the writer: tbesecker@timesshamrock.com

Jurors will return to the courthouse today to resume deliberations after they were unable to reach a verdict in Jason Dominick’s homicide trial Thursday.

The panel of seven women and five men weighed the evidence for 7 ½ hours Thursday, before Judge Terrence Nealon sent them home for the night. Deliberations resume at 8:30 a.m. today.

Jurors returned to their own homes Thursday night but were instructed — as they have been throughout the trial — not to read or watch any reports on the trial or have any discussions about the case.

Throughout the day, jurors sent notes to Judge Nealon asking questions and seeking copies of expert reports and photos of evidence that was presented during the nine-day trial.

Police charged Mr. Dominick with the July 20 shooting death of Frank Bonacci of Dunmore. Prosecutors say the 23-year-old Scranton man shot Mr. Bonacci in the back of the head as Neil Pal drove them in Mr. Bonacci’s Jeep. Mr. Dominick and Mr. Pal, 23, then forced the vehicle into a ravine, where it was found seven days later. Mr. Dominick claims Mr. Pal was the shooter.

Mr. Dominick is charged with an open count of homicide. Prosecutors are seeking a conviction for first- or third-degree murder and conspiracy. Mr. Pal, of Scranton, is charged as an accomplice and is scheduled for trial in June.

About an hour ½ after deliberation began, jurors sent their first note to the judge, requesting the autopsy report and supplemental report completed by forensic pathologist Gary Ross, M.D., and the report completed by the RJ Lee Group that discussed gun shot residue on the seats. They also asked for photos of the backseat of Mr. Bonacci’s Jeep, which included measurements of the space between the front and back seats, as well as photos of blood on the center console and photos of the bullet wound.

The same note asked for clarification of the verdict slip regarding the charge of first-degree murder that asks them to acquit or convict Mr. Dominick of the crime acting as the principal or accomplice.

The verdict slip in the case asks jurors to decide if Mr. Dominick is guilty or not guilty of each count of homicide. It does not distinguish between whether the panel believes Mr. Dominick was acting as the principal, which means he was the shooter, or as an accomplice, which means he aided in the commission of the crime but did not fire the fatal shot.

Each time the jury sent a note with another question or request, attorneys for both sides leafed through piles of photos and reports. In total, more than 200 items were entered into the evidence log.

A second request around 2:30 p.m. asked for a copy of a text message Mr. Bonacci sent to Mr. Dominick on June 8, after the pair ran into each other at a Scranton bar. Mr. Dominick was with his ex-girlfriend Keri Tucker, who also dated Mr. Bonacci. In the text, Mr. Bonacci said he had been with Ms. Tucker the night before and told Mr. Dominick to have fun with the “broken woman.” That night, a fight was planned between the two but Mr. Bonacci never showed up.

Throughout the remainder of the day, jurors also asked for:

■ photos taken of Mr. Bonacci’s legs as he lay dead in his vehicle.

■ a photo of the shirt Mr. Bonacci was wearing at the time of his death.

■ reports from Emanuel Kapelsohn, a firearms expert who testified for the defense.

■ reports from Cpl. Elwood Spencer Jr., a state police ballistics expert for the prosecution.

■ reports from Mike Fueshko, a Scranton detective who is an expert in crime scene analysis and blood stain pattern analysis.

■ written statements Mr. Dominick made after his arrest, but none were among the evidence.

Terrie Morgan Besecker, staff writer, contributed to this report.

Contact the writer: rbrown@timesshamrock.com, @rbrownTT on Twitter

Trial recap

Day One, April 28: Attorneys narrowed the jury field from 96 to 12, also selecting four alternates. When asked if they’d seen or heard about the case through media coverage or conversation, only three potential jurors said they had not.

Day Two, April 29: The jury heard opening statements from the prosecution and defense, delivering differing narratives about Mr. Dominick. Defense attorney Bernard Brown said it was Mr. Pal, not Mr. Dominick, who killed Mr. Bonacci and Mr. Dominick lied about the slaying because Mr. Pal threatened to kill his loved ones. First Assistant District Attorney Gene Talerico said Mr. Dominick was a jilted lover, jealous that his ex-girlfriend Keri Tucker dated Mr. Bonacci.

Day Three, April 30: Ms. Tucker, the woman prosecutors say was the center of the dispute between Mr. Dominick and Mr. Bonacci, testified about the turbulent five-year, on-again, off-again relationship she had with Mr. Dominick. She also testified about a recorded phone call she made to Mr. Dominick at the request of police. During the call, she repeatedly told Mr. Dominick things “didn’t look good” for him and Mr. Pal. Mr. Dominick repeatedly denied having anything to do with Mr. Bonacci’s death.

Maribeth Castaldi,a friend of Mr. Pal’s, testified she picked him and Mr. Dominick up off the side of the road on Interstate 81 South, near the area where Mr. Bonacci’s body was found, the morning of the homicide. Ms. Castaldi said she became suspicious after Mr. Pal called her days later and insinuated he had called her to pick up her boyfriend. She knew that not to be true.

Day Four, May 1: Daniel Miller,a friend and co-worker of Mr. Bonacci’s, testified about finding Mr. Bonacci’s car at the bottom of a ravine off Ridge Row in Scranton seven days after he disappeared.

Mr. Miller said he worked his way down to the car and found Mr. Bonacci’s decomposing body.

Scranton Detective Michael Schultz testified about his interpretation of dozens of text messages Mr. Dominick sent and received in the weeks prior to and after Mr. Bonacci’s body was found. Detective Schultz said the texts showed Mr. Dominick remained obsessed with Ms. Tucker, which backed up the prosecution’s theory he killed Mr. Bonacci to settle a grudge.

Day Five, May 2: Forensic Pathologist Dr. Gary Ross, who performed the autopsy on Mr. Bonacci, testified he concluded the fatal shot was most likely fired from the rear passenger seat, refuting the defense’s claim that the shot was fired from the driver’s seat. Dr. Ross said the blood spatter pattern in the car showed Mr. Bonacci was seated, looking forward and with his arm on the center console, when the fatal shot was fired.

Anthony Rusielewicz, an inmate who served time with Mr. Dominick at the Monroe County Correctional Facility, testified Mr. Dominick confessed to him that he shot Mr. Bonacci. Mr. Rusielewicz said Mr. Dominick said he planned to present a defense based on duress, and that he felt confident police would pin the blame for the killing on the “Indian kid,” which prosecutors say referred to Mr. Pal.

Day Six, May 5: Scranton Detective Mike Fueshko, an expert witness, concluded the shot came from the back seat, based on his bloodstain analysis. He also testified about the 241 bullet holes in the wall of Mr. Pal’s garage and items seized through search warrant. Detective Joseph Lafferty also confirmed that he told Mr. Dominick he was going “down to Chinatown” during an interview where one other person was present. Inmate Mr. Rusielewicz, who testified Mr. Dominick confessed to the killing in prison, also knew the phrase was used.

Day Seven, May 6: Mr. Dominick took the stand to testify in his own defense. Mr. Dominick denied he shot Mr. Bonacci, pinning the blame on Mr. Pal. He admitted he helped force Mr. Bonacci’s vehicle into a ravine, but said he only did so because Mr. Pal threatened to kill him and/or his family. He broke down in tears several times as he described seeing Mr. Pal shoot Mr. Bonacci.

Day Eight, May 7: Mr. Dominick re-took the stand to be cross-examined by the prosecution. The defense and the prosecution also called experts who presented conflicting conclusions about where the shooter was seated in the Jeep. Emanuel Kapelsohn spoke as a firearms expert for the defense, indicating it was more likely that the shot came from the driver’s seat. Wayne Ross, M.D.,a forensic pathologist, spoke as an expert in kinematics, bio-mechanics, bloodstain analysis and forensic pathology for the prosecution. He said the shooter was in the back seat.

Day Nine, May 8: The prosecution and defense presented closing arguments, reiterating key points from their cases, before asking the jury to find in their favor. The defense said though Mr. Dominick hung out with the wrong crowd and had lied about the cover-up, he wasn’t a killer. The prosecution said Mr. Dominick lied from the start, displayed fake emotions during his testimony and his version of events didn’t add up. They also said texts and testimony showed he was jealous over Mr. Bonacci’s involvement with Ms. Tucker. After 7 1/2 hours, the jurors concluded deliberation for the day with no verdict.

We welcome user discussion on our site, under the following guidelines:

To comment you must first create a profile and sign-in with a verified DISQUS account or social network ID. Sign up here.

Comments in violation of the rules will be denied, and repeat violators will be banned. Please help police the community by flagging offensive comments for our moderators to review. By posting a comment, you agree to our full terms and conditions. Click here to read terms and conditions.

Think you have the cutest pet in NEPA? Share a photo of your furry companion and you could win prizes from our sponsors! Deadline to submit an entry is March 19, and voting will take place from March 20-March 31.